Get a bounded Ygdria subtree

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying the read is bounded by explicit depth and node limits and a response budget, though it does not explain truncation behavior when maxNodes is reached.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It states the core operation, its bounds, and the alternative tool in one compact structure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only subtree tool, the description covers the core action, limits, and the main sibling alternative, while annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gaps, especially includeArchived semantics and truncation/return behavior with no output schema, are minor but still present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description maps 'one placement' to placementId and 'depth and node limits' to maxDepth/maxNodes. But schema description coverage is 0%, and includeArchived is not explained at all, so the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: read one placement and its descendants. It also sets the scope with explicit depth and node limits and names get_tree_overview as the cross-root alternative, so the agent can distinguish this from the overview tool without opening schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a clear condition for this tool, reading a single placement subtree within depth/node limits, and explicitly routes cross-root exploration to get_tree_overview. However, it does not distinguish this tool from closely related siblings such as get_tree_node or list_tree_children.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.